So you think that the general public actually has the most up-to-date and accurate account of the laws at home now?
The only conscionable solution to this is to offer the entire state code including the documents it includes by reference for free online for all to download, just the way I can download the entire US Code.
Anything short of everything is proof the state government needs to be sued, voted out and fired (as appropriate to their status as elected or unelected officials), or in the worst case overthrown.
In the mean time, this guy is a user contributing and tracking his own contributions from one site to another without any help. I fail to see how that's much different from him tracking which contributions have been made by others and repeatedly checking the content for accuracy with the help of others.
There is now no wording of the claim to license your information in section 11 of the EULA at all.
The entire wording of section 11 is now this:
11. Content license from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
It hasn't been moved anywhere else in the document, either.
Re:Who needs privacy when people are so predictabl
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1
I'm not attacking you. You misread my questions as hostile when that was not their intent.
You did start making references to whiz-bang little kid topics like spaceships, which are only the setting of the story, as soon as you decided I was too simple to understand anything else. I'd call that the attack.
I have a feeling I'm being subtly trolled. You have won, I guess. HAND.
Re:Who needs privacy when people are so predictabl
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1
Well, Descartes was an ardent nationalist and a monarchist. He eschewed empiricism in favor or rationalism. He was a bit of a coward who canceled his publications if they would be ill-received. He was interested in slowly and subversively overthrowing the ideas of Aristotle so as not to have his ideas rejected. He believed no vacuums could exist, and that something would always fill one.
That might not be the exact opposite of Locke that Card had in mind, but the description fits very well with someone trying to convince a former empire to take back its place on the world stage through alternating force and deception.
Who said I was angry? Can't a person ask a question without being angry? I just misremembered a part of a fictional work.
Oh, and there are several deep topics in those books besides Locke and Demosthenes being the two faces of Peter on the Net. It's not just lasers and spaceships besides that one fact. How about training children to lead armies? What about the nature of sentience? The disparity between nearly instant communication and much slower physical travel? Using genetic alteration to control a population like in Children of the Mind? Speaking of genetic manipulation, what about Anton's Key? Religion in the age of space travel and alien life forms is a good one. Loyalty, like Ender's to his mission, Bean's to Ender, and Suriawong's to Bean? Marriage and reproduction when a parent has a genetic issue deep enough for you? The effects on the Netherlands from being an open-border global nation? The very fact that Ender brings back his brother and sister as teenagers when one's been dead thousands of years and the other is beside him as an adult? The decisions of the Wiggin parents to have a third child knowing what he's supposed to do, to allow Peter to do what he does, and to protect Bean from Achilles? To say there's only one deep issue in the whole series is a real insult to the author.
So. If. Each. Take. The. Text. Of. One. Law. And. Contribute (give). It. To. This. Guy. As. A. Community (group of people). Effort (try). Then. Is. His. New. Compilation (group of things). Infringing (against the law)?
Fair Use means a reasonably short piece for purposes direct use, commentary, example, summary, refutation, etc. A single law is pretty useless unless you get the whole of that law. That means each law could be fairly used by a person.
If the text of the law is fair to use out of these sources, then we each take one from the copyrighted source and strip the formatting. We submit them one by one to this guy's site. He collects them. He organizes them. He formats them. He gets a new copyright on the new compilation. He can then release his compilation under the terms he chooses.
There's nothing derivative because he's not using their font, spacing, organization, or anything. He's just using user-contributed text of the laws of the state. Are they going to try people from all around the world for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement to free the laws? That'd be even funnier than just suing this one guy.
Re:Who needs privacy when people are so predictabl
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1
I've read about Seinfeld's writing style and his endorsements of products on the show quite a bit. The character he plays is himself, and generally represents the real person only slightly more neurotic. His character's likes and dislikes were often his own tastes.
The very fact that other people bought them because Jerry Seinfeld -- the man or the character he and Larry David based on him -- proves that people will follow a trend, though. Even if it was his real tastes and no money switched hands, he still had that effect. Even if people weren't buying them to be more like Seinfeld but just reminded of how much they liked the products because of the show, the show mentioning them still started that trend.
What if Elaine liked muffin bottoms for some odd reason? What if her childhood dream bike was a Huffy instead of a Schwinn (I know, bad choice). What if George worked for the Mets or Neuman was a FedEx driver?
The movie ET used Reese's Pieces and not M&Ms, and the sales of Reese's Pieces shot through the roof. What if they had used Mike & Ikes instead?
Well, I can't say that erring on the side of caution is a bad thing. If you're going to err just a bit towards caution or recklessness, caution is often the better way to go.
I'm not accusing anyone of this in this particular instance, but some people try to be so cautious that they become harmful themselves. Think about drivers on a freeway. Going too slow is often more dangerous than speeding a bit, leaving too big a gap in front of you just fits another car with someone careless driving it, and being too quick on the brakes can cause an accident while using them more steadily could have still avoided the original threat.
Any license of this length from a company the size of Google deserves a cautious eye. After all, they have many more lawyers than I do. I'm not even saying I like the license. I just think that it's not as bad as people are making it seem.
So fair use covers what, one law at a time? So if we each go copy one law and contribute them to this guy as a community effort where's the infringement again?
Speaking of Rosa Parks and freedom from the tyranny of the state through civil disobedience and the courts reminds me of a funny story.
The KKK wanted an Adopt-a-Highway sign in Missouri. This, of course, was for propaganda purposes to show the Klan in a good light and probably also to frighten and intimidate non-whites along the highway. The state refused, and the Klan sued on First Amendment rights of speech and assembly. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Klan won in court, as they should have. The state of Missouri won in the long run, though. They named the section of highway that was adopted the Rosa Parks Highway. Nobody ever picked up the trash, and the Klan's adoption of the road was dropped from the register.
That's nothing. In my city, if your grass grows too fast while you're on vacation and you forgot to hire a service to mow it before it gets to 10" in height, the city can mow it for you.
For a fee. Of $75. As an additional tax. On your home. That causes your house to be forfeit to a tax lien sale if you don't pay it.
This story is not about the United States government claiming copyright. It is about the state of California's state government claiming copyright on laws of the state of California. The two are completely different governments with only partly overlapping jurisdictions.
A person can, in fact, be tried for the same act under both Federal and State laws in their respective courts without being deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed protection against double jeopardy. Neither can try that person twice on its own for that act, though. This is because certain acts may be illegal under both State and Federal laws.
The state government of a State is sovereign over that State except as limited by the Federal government, while the Federal government is sovereign over the entire country. I'd say the Constitution and the US common law (in addition to common sense) would bar California's government from grasping this power, but the US Code denying the US Government from doing something wouldn't be a factor at all. IANAL, but at least I'm free to read my laws.
The issue with Hanlon's Razor is that whether it's malice or stupidity for a motive, the actions can harm you just as much.
The issue with your corollary is that whether it's stupidity or greedy self-interest, the actions can harm you just as much.
The motives can help you understand an action and may even help you reason with the person committing them. However, even if someone's intent is generous and helpful, they can still harm you. People mustn't let the fact that a motive is not malicious deter them from discouraging harmful acts.
Re:Who needs privacy when people are so predictabl
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1
You're right. I knew it wasn't Voltaire, but I still got it wrong.
How the hell do you assume that I didn't understand the choice of the names at the time, when it's been months since I've even seen the covers of those books? Do you recall every detail of every work you've ever read?
Re:Really makes you wonder....
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1
We all know you're actually "Anonymous J. Monkeypants IV", but we thought we'd let you scrape by with shortening it until you brought it up.
As for no politics without lies, I'm a little skeptical. There would be a lot less politics, surely. Yet there would still be differing points of view and conflicting interests. People would be able to make value judgments on those points of view if the people presenting them were honest, though.
Re:Who needs privacy when people are so predictabl
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's Locke and Descartes in the Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow series of books, IIRC.
If you don't think the media already loves trend setters just for being trend setters, you haven't paid much attention to Us media for, well, your whole life.
Sean Combs and Paris Hilton pitch burgers for cash. Do you really think it's because Paris Hilton eats thick burgers or because Sean Combs cares that Burger King is open late?
Stars who made their names as actors and musicians are brought forth to endorse or oppose candidates. Alec Baldwin and Eddie Vedder both quipped that they'd leave the country if Bush was elected, but neither held up their end of the deal. I like both of them as artists, but this makes me think less of them as people.
Jerry Seinfeld has been recruited to make Vista seem cool. His show moved nearly every product the show mentioned in dialogue off the shelves, so it might just work.
People listen to pundits and political shills because the TV, radio, and web outlets make them famous for... what? They're famous for saying things and getting people to pay attention. So they get more readers, viewers, and listeners because they have readers, viewers, and listeners.
If you convince Oliver Stone of a conspiracy, he'll make a film and convince a million more people. If you get George Noory or Matt Drudge to briefly mention something as an outside possibility, you'll have some people convinced of it.
Even repeating the same things in completely fictional works enough times forms public opinion. People watching shows like Dalls, The OC, and Friends tend to think all Americans live in big, comfortably appointed homes in trendy areas and drink $5 a cup coffee all day long.
I did "READ the damn thing", but I read it early yesterday and it's a long document. I didn't remember that, but I saw the definition upon rereading. Contracts do have a wide berth to define terms, but since IANAL I couldn't tell you how wide.
Did you also read the Google general privacy policy, which states how they use data?
Did you notice that when agreeing to the Terms of Service, you're agreeing to to use of your data in accordance with those privacy documents, according to section 7 of the ToS?
Did you notice in 11.1 of ToS (the document everyone is pissy about), it says they can only use the data to render their services or promote the services to others?
Did you notice that in the privacy policy for Chrome they specify exactly what they collect under what circumstances and how they use it?
Did you notice that in the privacy policy for Chrome they say they will notify you of any changes to the privacy policy, even though in general the services (lower-case 's') are not bound to notify you of changes?
Did you notice right in the privacy policy for Chrome that Google explains how or gives links to instructions how to disable features that send additional information?
A legal document that refers to other legal documents is not complete without the text of those other legal documents. If it was, it would have no reason to reference them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how they get their customers. Everyone who recommends Windows other than grudgingly for a specific application is a comedian or clueless.
Oh, it does lots of stuff. It just does it poorly, slowly, and for any twelve-year-old anywhere in the world who happens to scan your IP.
that's okay. "Vista ready" is too. Microsoft's been lying a long time.
You mean besides hiring the guys who beat him up in high school to mow his 16-acre lawn?
You forgot the version 9 at the end, even though there was no 6, 7, or 8.
So you think that the general public actually has the most up-to-date and accurate account of the laws at home now?
The only conscionable solution to this is to offer the entire state code including the documents it includes by reference for free online for all to download, just the way I can download the entire US Code.
Anything short of everything is proof the state government needs to be sued, voted out and fired (as appropriate to their status as elected or unelected officials), or in the worst case overthrown.
In the mean time, this guy is a user contributing and tracking his own contributions from one site to another without any help. I fail to see how that's much different from him tracking which contributions have been made by others and repeatedly checking the content for accuracy with the help of others.
There is now no wording of the claim to license your information in section 11 of the EULA at all.
The entire wording of section 11 is now this:
It hasn't been moved anywhere else in the document, either.
I'm not attacking you. You misread my questions as hostile when that was not their intent.
You did start making references to whiz-bang little kid topics like spaceships, which are only the setting of the story, as soon as you decided I was too simple to understand anything else. I'd call that the attack.
I have a feeling I'm being subtly trolled. You have won, I guess. HAND.
Well, Descartes was an ardent nationalist and a monarchist. He eschewed empiricism in favor or rationalism. He was a bit of a coward who canceled his publications if they would be ill-received. He was interested in slowly and subversively overthrowing the ideas of Aristotle so as not to have his ideas rejected. He believed no vacuums could exist, and that something would always fill one.
That might not be the exact opposite of Locke that Card had in mind, but the description fits very well with someone trying to convince a former empire to take back its place on the world stage through alternating force and deception.
Who said I was angry? Can't a person ask a question without being angry? I just misremembered a part of a fictional work.
Oh, and there are several deep topics in those books besides Locke and Demosthenes being the two faces of Peter on the Net. It's not just lasers and spaceships besides that one fact. How about training children to lead armies? What about the nature of sentience? The disparity between nearly instant communication and much slower physical travel? Using genetic alteration to control a population like in Children of the Mind? Speaking of genetic manipulation, what about Anton's Key? Religion in the age of space travel and alien life forms is a good one. Loyalty, like Ender's to his mission, Bean's to Ender, and Suriawong's to Bean? Marriage and reproduction when a parent has a genetic issue deep enough for you? The effects on the Netherlands from being an open-border global nation? The very fact that Ender brings back his brother and sister as teenagers when one's been dead thousands of years and the other is beside him as an adult? The decisions of the Wiggin parents to have a third child knowing what he's supposed to do, to allow Peter to do what he does, and to protect Bean from Achilles? To say there's only one deep issue in the whole series is a real insult to the author.
So. If. Each. Take. The. Text. Of. One. Law. And. Contribute (give). It. To. This. Guy. As. A. Community (group of people). Effort (try). Then. Is. His. New. Compilation (group of things). Infringing (against the law)?
Fair Use means a reasonably short piece for purposes direct use, commentary, example, summary, refutation, etc. A single law is pretty useless unless you get the whole of that law. That means each law could be fairly used by a person.
If the text of the law is fair to use out of these sources, then we each take one from the copyrighted source and strip the formatting. We submit them one by one to this guy's site. He collects them. He organizes them. He formats them. He gets a new copyright on the new compilation. He can then release his compilation under the terms he chooses.
There's nothing derivative because he's not using their font, spacing, organization, or anything. He's just using user-contributed text of the laws of the state. Are they going to try people from all around the world for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement to free the laws? That'd be even funnier than just suing this one guy.
I've read about Seinfeld's writing style and his endorsements of products on the show quite a bit. The character he plays is himself, and generally represents the real person only slightly more neurotic. His character's likes and dislikes were often his own tastes.
The very fact that other people bought them because Jerry Seinfeld -- the man or the character he and Larry David based on him -- proves that people will follow a trend, though. Even if it was his real tastes and no money switched hands, he still had that effect. Even if people weren't buying them to be more like Seinfeld but just reminded of how much they liked the products because of the show, the show mentioning them still started that trend.
What if Elaine liked muffin bottoms for some odd reason? What if her childhood dream bike was a Huffy instead of a Schwinn (I know, bad choice). What if George worked for the Mets or Neuman was a FedEx driver?
The movie ET used Reese's Pieces and not M&Ms, and the sales of Reese's Pieces shot through the roof. What if they had used Mike & Ikes instead?
Well, I can't say that erring on the side of caution is a bad thing. If you're going to err just a bit towards caution or recklessness, caution is often the better way to go.
I'm not accusing anyone of this in this particular instance, but some people try to be so cautious that they become harmful themselves. Think about drivers on a freeway. Going too slow is often more dangerous than speeding a bit, leaving too big a gap in front of you just fits another car with someone careless driving it, and being too quick on the brakes can cause an accident while using them more steadily could have still avoided the original threat.
Any license of this length from a company the size of Google deserves a cautious eye. After all, they have many more lawyers than I do. I'm not even saying I like the license. I just think that it's not as bad as people are making it seem.
So fair use covers what, one law at a time? So if we each go copy one law and contribute them to this guy as a community effort where's the infringement again?
I'd go for "criminal legal malpractice".
Speaking of Rosa Parks and freedom from the tyranny of the state through civil disobedience and the courts reminds me of a funny story.
The KKK wanted an Adopt-a-Highway sign in Missouri. This, of course, was for propaganda purposes to show the Klan in a good light and probably also to frighten and intimidate non-whites along the highway. The state refused, and the Klan sued on First Amendment rights of speech and assembly. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Klan won in court, as they should have. The state of Missouri won in the long run, though. They named the section of highway that was adopted the Rosa Parks Highway. Nobody ever picked up the trash, and the Klan's adoption of the road was dropped from the register.
Being honest and being law-abiding are two completely different things.
"Do you know how fast you were going back there?" "Yes, officer, as far as my speedometer said I was going about 96 miles per hour."
"Did you hit this man?" "Yes." "Why?" "Because I don't like him."
That's nothing. In my city, if your grass grows too fast while you're on vacation and you forgot to hire a service to mow it before it gets to 10" in height, the city can mow it for you.
For a fee. Of $75. As an additional tax. On your home. That causes your house to be forfeit to a tax lien sale if you don't pay it.
This story is not about the United States government claiming copyright. It is about the state of California's state government claiming copyright on laws of the state of California. The two are completely different governments with only partly overlapping jurisdictions.
A person can, in fact, be tried for the same act under both Federal and State laws in their respective courts without being deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed protection against double jeopardy. Neither can try that person twice on its own for that act, though. This is because certain acts may be illegal under both State and Federal laws.
The state government of a State is sovereign over that State except as limited by the Federal government, while the Federal government is sovereign over the entire country. I'd say the Constitution and the US common law (in addition to common sense) would bar California's government from grasping this power, but the US Code denying the US Government from doing something wouldn't be a factor at all. IANAL, but at least I'm free to read my laws.
Insurance policies can write in their policies that they do not cover death by suicide. There really must be a better example.
The issue with Hanlon's Razor is that whether it's malice or stupidity for a motive, the actions can harm you just as much.
The issue with your corollary is that whether it's stupidity or greedy self-interest, the actions can harm you just as much.
The motives can help you understand an action and may even help you reason with the person committing them. However, even if someone's intent is generous and helpful, they can still harm you. People mustn't let the fact that a motive is not malicious deter them from discouraging harmful acts.
Burr? Hamilton?
You're right. I knew it wasn't Voltaire, but I still got it wrong.
How the hell do you assume that I didn't understand the choice of the names at the time, when it's been months since I've even seen the covers of those books? Do you recall every detail of every work you've ever read?
We all know you're actually "Anonymous J. Monkeypants IV", but we thought we'd let you scrape by with shortening it until you brought it up.
As for no politics without lies, I'm a little skeptical. There would be a lot less politics, surely. Yet there would still be differing points of view and conflicting interests. People would be able to make value judgments on those points of view if the people presenting them were honest, though.
It's Locke and Descartes in the Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow series of books, IIRC.
If you don't think the media already loves trend setters just for being trend setters, you haven't paid much attention to Us media for, well, your whole life.
Sean Combs and Paris Hilton pitch burgers for cash. Do you really think it's because Paris Hilton eats thick burgers or because Sean Combs cares that Burger King is open late?
Stars who made their names as actors and musicians are brought forth to endorse or oppose candidates. Alec Baldwin and Eddie Vedder both quipped that they'd leave the country if Bush was elected, but neither held up their end of the deal. I like both of them as artists, but this makes me think less of them as people.
Jerry Seinfeld has been recruited to make Vista seem cool. His show moved nearly every product the show mentioned in dialogue off the shelves, so it might just work.
People listen to pundits and political shills because the TV, radio, and web outlets make them famous for ... what? They're famous for saying things and getting people to pay attention. So they get more readers, viewers, and listeners because they have readers, viewers, and listeners.
If you convince Oliver Stone of a conspiracy, he'll make a film and convince a million more people. If you get George Noory or Matt Drudge to briefly mention something as an outside possibility, you'll have some people convinced of it.
Even repeating the same things in completely fictional works enough times forms public opinion. People watching shows like Dalls, The OC, and Friends tend to think all Americans live in big, comfortably appointed homes in trendy areas and drink $5 a cup coffee all day long.
I did "READ the damn thing", but I read it early yesterday and it's a long document. I didn't remember that, but I saw the definition upon rereading. Contracts do have a wide berth to define terms, but since IANAL I couldn't tell you how wide.
Did you also read the Google general privacy policy, which states how they use data?
Did you read the Chrome-specific privacy policy at http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html?
Did you notice that when agreeing to the Terms of Service, you're agreeing to to use of your data in accordance with those privacy documents, according to section 7 of the ToS?
Did you notice in 11.1 of ToS (the document everyone is pissy about), it says they can only use the data to render their services or promote the services to others?
Did you notice that in the privacy policy for Chrome they specify exactly what they collect under what circumstances and how they use it?
Did you notice that in the privacy policy for Chrome they say they will notify you of any changes to the privacy policy, even though in general the services (lower-case 's') are not bound to notify you of changes?
Did you notice right in the privacy policy for Chrome that Google explains how or gives links to instructions how to disable features that send additional information?
A legal document that refers to other legal documents is not complete without the text of those other legal documents. If it was, it would have no reason to reference them.
Did you read those policies and additional terms?